= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I was hoping for more folks to run into in Portland, for those of us not on the Portland mailing list would you be able to provide a route where we (barring the possibility that I am in fact the only person not on the list) non-listers can get on said list? Or, alternatively keep the location and time up to date on this spot.
...unless you carry a smartphone with you. :-)
I do carry the phone with me but taken out the phone interrupts the conversation.
If I take a minute to locate the right source for an argument that's completely fine for a discussion on Lesswrong and even IRC.
It's not fine for a live face to face conversation.
If I take a minute to locate the right source for an argument that's completely fine for a discussion on Lesswrong and even IRC.
It's not fine for a live face to face conversation.
I think that depends on local norms. In one of my old social groups finding information online was practically expected. It helped that conversations were generally between four or five people, so there could be related tangential discussion while someone was looking something up.
Is cis or trans identity really something that is truth-apt (& therefore in the purview of probability)? It seems to be a combination of self-description of feelings, plus chosen group affiliation.
That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that "trans identity" is a symptom of a diseased mind and culture, whereas a normal and healthy understanding of gender would understand that it's simply the correct cultural roles assigned to each sex - either as part of a Schelling point necessitated by our need for roles and divisions of duty, or as part of inherent biological differences.
Each interpretation is entangled with a particular world-view and a particular political position, so it becomes very difficult to extract true facts from bald assertions.
Another interpretation is that "trans identity" is a symptom of a diseased mind and culture, whereas a normal and healthy understanding of gender would understand that it's simply the correct cultural roles assigned to each sex - either as part of a Schelling point necessitated by our need for roles and divisions of duty, or as part of inherent biological differences.
Until recently, there were a lot of trans people who had this interpretation of gender and the associated world-view, but just thought their minds had their identified gender's biological characteristics so they fit better there. See "Harry Benjamin Syndrome". Though I'll warn you that it mostly fell out of favor before the modern internet, so there isn't much information on it online.
In response to
2013 Less Wrong Census/Survey
Took survey. Reminded me that I've never had an IQ test; is it worthwhile?
I found the WAIS helpful, but only because it factored it into multiple components and the structure of my scores was illuminating. (I had a severe discrepency between two groups of components, and very little variation within them)
The controls in that study were general population, not transgenders who haven't been reassigned, so it doesn't answer the question whether transgenders would be happier after reassignment surgery. Trangenders have high psychiatric comorbidity and suicide rates in general, the question is can they be diminished.
Also, reassignment surgery isn't the same thing as socially and culturally transitioning.
Sorry, I didn't see this until today.
Can you give me a link to some more formal description of this? I don't understand how you would use a ten dimensional metric space to capture English words without reducing them to a few broad variables, which seems to be what he's claiming as a result.
The expected value of defecting is 4p/(p + 4(1-p), to within one part in the number of survey takers. Whether or not you defect makes no difference as to the proportion of people who defect.
Unless you're using timeless decision theory, if I understand TDT correctly (which I very well might not). In that case, the calculations by Zack show the amount of causal entanglement for which cooperation is a good choice. That is, P(others cooperate | I cooperate) and P(others defect | I defect) should be more than 0.8 for cooperation to be a good idea.
I do not think my decisions have that level of causal entanglement with other humans, so I defected.
Though, I just realized, I should have been basing my decision on my entanglement with lesswrong survey takers, which is probably substantially higher. Oh well.
Nevermind, you already covered this, though in a different fashion.
In response to
2013 Less Wrong Census/Survey
Surveyed. I liked the game.
If there are any naturalistic neopagans reading this, I'm curious how they answered the religion questions.
The expected value of defecting is 4p/(p + 4(1-p), to within one part in the number of survey takers. Whether or not you defect makes no difference as to the proportion of people who defect.
The solution is to determine how likely it is that a random participant is going to defect, conditional on your choice of cooperate or defect. If you're playing with a total of N copies of yourself, you cooperate and get the maximal payout ($60/N). If you're playing against cooperate bots, you defect and get $60*4N/(N-1).
We can generalize this to partial levels. If you play with D defectors and C cooperators whose opinion you can't change, and X people who will cooperate when you cooperate (and defect when you defect), then the payouts are as thus:
C: (C + X)/(C + D + X) D: 4(C /(C + D + X)
You can solve for the break even point by setting C + X = 4 * C
So the answer is that you should defect, unless you think that for every person who is going to cooperate no matter what, there are at least three people who are thinking with similar enough reasoning to come up with the same answer you come up with (regardless of what answer that is).
The expected value of defecting is 4p/(p + 4(1-p), to within one part in the number of survey takers. Whether or not you defect makes no difference as to the proportion of people who defect.
Unless you're using timeless decision theory, if I understand TDT correctly (which I very well might not). In that case, the calculations by Zack show the amount of causal entanglement for which cooperation is a good choice. That is, P(others cooperate | I cooperate) and P(others defect | I defect) should be more than 0.8 for cooperation to be a good idea.
I do not think my decisions have that level of causal entanglement with other humans, so I defected.
Though, I just realized, I should have been basing my decision on my entanglement with lesswrong survey takers, which is probably substantially higher. Oh well.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
How are our speed limits determined? Is it reasonable to assume that they're set such that it's just within our abilities to drive that fast (plus some margin, of course)?
In my experience people mostly ignore the speed limits and drive at whatever speed feels right for the circumstances. Speed limits might have a role in building peoples' intuitions, though.